Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
14y
I am 100% AGAINST the government requiring the people to purchase healthcare or face a penalty. I am also against the federal government forcing the states to provide healthcare for those that aren't covered by private insurance.
America became the great nation we were because of the free enterprise system. We are now on a course of becoming a socialist country. The working class will be taxed more and more to cover those that do not want to work, and provide for themselves. The government run healthcare system will be like every other government program, overpriced and impossible to access.
We are already paying billions of dollars in California in medical expenses for released convicts (because we can't afford to keep them in prison and 40,000 were released), sexual predators, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. Why should the working taxpayers be required to pay more to cover those that choose not to work?
It's not even the direct penalties, etc. for the working class should they opt out of insurance. The entire system needs reformed. The liberals have expanded disability, healthcare, etc. to such extremes, that soon there will be no business left in California to create the tax base necessary to suport it. You can only tax people and business so much, and when there's more taking than giving, the country collapses, and we become Greece!
I'll stand for a free country, with personal choice, and a free enterprise system, and forego Big Brother thank you.
Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by David VanSteenkiste:
You all completely missed it. This law has nothing to do with health care. It has everything to do with control. The road to socialism starts with universal healthcare. ......
I have lived in Europe and experienced their hc system. It ain't so great.
Quick, without checking google, name a Socialist country in Europe.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by David VanSteenkiste:
The road to socialism starts with universal healthcare.
Funny how I don't see any posts from you in the past 50 years lamenting how the Social Security Act of 1965 was all about control and how we should be getting rid of medicare.
Also funny how nobody that questions the "progressive agenda" ever suggests that we need to get rid of government subsidized health care for all military veterans -- are they another exception on the list of people who for some reason have a right to healthcare?
Btw, if your concern is about the government passing laws to extend control, that's pretty much been the norm since 9/11...funny that this is the law you decide to latch onto...the one that actually helps our citizens as opposed to oppressing them.
Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
14y
Wow, Somehow i just scanned through 8 pages in this thread and still have no specific understanding of what the bill actually means to us, health care wise, financially, etc.
Lots of opinions, lots of back and forth.
I will admit upfront that I have not read one word of the bill at time of this post (but intend to) so I will not provide my opinion as to if it is good or bad.
What i would like to hear about here (rather than the banter) is how EXACTLY it affects us as RE investors. After leaving dinner at my Father-in-Laws tonight, he mentioned some tax that would hit me each time i sell a home to the tune of 3.8%!! That of course scared the crap out of me as it would cut into my flip profits (capital gains). I see from some comments here that is not exactly correct, but could be.
How about laying out the bill here and forego the opinions on if it is good or bad . . .
I sure would appreciate it.
Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
14y
Will Barnard If you indeed read through this thread you must have seen the evidence that the great BP nation isn't so into "laying out the bill here". :) I'm in agreement that the thread would be better with info that helps makes the bill easier to understand.
Your FIL's concern is a real one. However it's not the sale of a property that gets taxed. It's profit on investments that are reported as income that will get taxed. A couple with an AGI of over $250K will be paying a 3.8% tax on all non wage income over $250K. That would include investment real estate sales. Say you and your wife have an AGI of $1M in 2013 and all of it is non wage income. Then you'll be paying 3.8% on $750,000.00 which is $28,500.00 in extra taxes. My guess is that 1) you've got decent tax help so that your AGI isn't $1M and 2) that your deals can support the additional $28,000 in a year without making any changes to the business model. :)
OC is relevant to real estate investors. Many REIs are self employed and already have trouble obtaining affordable insurance. Putting cost aside, not belonging to an employee insurance group has made it difficult or impossible to get insurance when anyone in the family has a pre-existing condition. I know many couples where one gets or keeps a job with employee insurance so they or their children will have coverage. Again, it's not about costs but about group plans that don't discriminate. That was a much needed change for the self employed IMO.
Mililani, HI · Member since 2012 · 26 posts · 3 votes
14y
Maybe it was a mistake to link heath care insurance coverage to one's employer. Maybe it would be better to handle it like auto insurance. Each buys his own, tailored to their individual needs, with no interstate restrictions and more competition. Singapore, for example, does this. There are health care clinics on just about every corner. General and routine health care is cheap, readily available without wait and of high quality. Catastophic care insurance is available for a price for those that need it.
On another note, we already have socialized health care. It's called "Medicare"/"Medicaid". How is that working for ya? I've heard that Medicare rejects more healthcare claims and procedure requests than does the private insurance companies.
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
14y
Thanks Charles Perkins and other fact finders. Charles, I also heard the bill taxes or changes conditions for medical equipment/device providers....any idea about that?
Another good point is that the doughnut hole is closed!
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
14y
As to the issue of the penalty being a tax, I view it as a penalty collected through the tax laws. It's alot like a pigeon being a dove, but a dove is not a pigeon.
Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes
14y
Bill Gulley - I find it somewhat ironic that I have read a number of your posts where you say that it's the intent, that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be considered a duck - and that you have even posted elsewhere that a judge should see it that way. Didn't seem to happen with the judges and this penalty - OOPS, I meant to say "tax".
Developer · Santa Clarita, CA · Member since 2008 · 15k+ posts · 10k+ votes
14y
I agree, my wife ONLy works for the health benefits for our family and those (quality) benefits are huge. Even if i paid for them on my own, they would likely not be as good and cost a bundle and a half.
If OC actually enables self-employed persons like myself access to QUALITY health care and we all simply have to kicjk in a bit into a kitty, i am all for it. The problem as i see it is that the quality of this program and the care associated with it will suck and resemble going to county hospital for services. I am NOT for that.
As to income, my accountant can only do so much to save me taxes, my AGI will be higher than the $250k limit so I will have exposure to this 3.8% tax. Those with such higher incomes typically have the ability to afford their own private health care or have it from some plan from a spouse. Why the government expects the well off to pay for everyone else is beyond me. The lower class on up through the middle class will likely use these benefits and they should also be kicking in for it.
Example - you pay property taxes and part of that payment is for the public schools. What if you never have kids? You end up paying for schools that you never send your kids to. Fair, no, but part of the program.
I am concerned that this OC is similar in nature and will have the same porr quality. Not only that, I am also afraid they will screw it up as they do everything else.
My apologies for going political and opinionated, something I wanted to avoid, but could not figure a way to explain my concerns any other way.
If I am to pay 3.8% on all profits above $250k from RE flips, I am getting hit with a tax bill. Now, $3,800 on every $100k of profit is not a lot, but it is also not pocket change either and I have to work that much harder to get good deals (in a market that is already very tight). Seems government just keeps making it harder on RE investors!
Why not pass the smoking tax, most of these people are future hospital clients anyways, they should pay for it, not me.
Investor · Columbia, SC · Member since 2012 · 47 posts · 15 votes
14y
Seems to me, 85% of Americans who currently have access to insurance coverage will pay for the other 15% to have access.
In the process the 85% will quite likely have less health care benefits than they currently enjoy.
Investor · Columbia, SC · Member since 2012 · 47 posts · 15 votes
14y
Scott, I would agree with paying more taxes (reasonable) if it helps others.
But in the process , what Iam worried is as part of containing health care costs Health care Rationing comes in.
And Health care rationing is something I am scared of.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by Steve Babiak:
Didn't seem to happen with the judges and this penalty - OOPS, I meant to say "tax".
Funny thing is, this appears to be the one thing that both Presidential candidates can completely agree on -- they both claim (Romney just this morning) that the individual mandate is NOT a tax.
Personally, it sounds like a tax to me, but unfortunately, both candidates appear to care more about perception than they do about reality and people...
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by Steve Babiak:
Bill Gulley - I find it somewhat ironic that I have read a number of your posts where you say that it's the intent, that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be considered a duck - and that you have even posted elsewhere that a judge should see it that way. Didn't seem to happen with the judges and this penalty - OOPS, I meant to say "tax".
Not that a judge "should", but often may or could, I think, that quackers are quackers, lol.
Here, I think that they majority were looking for the excuse to keep the bill entact to see where the feds had the authority to invoke a penalty and they used the tax code to do it. While the intent may not have been to make it a tax, I suppose it was the means to the end using the tax code and authority.
BTW, Romney seems to agree, that it is a penalty, not a tax in agreement with one justice and disagreeing with the findings, and that was his position on the MA plan as well.
I really don't thinkit matters, it seems to be a driven argument only to imply or show that we were mislead, which I don't think was the intent.
Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
14y
What nobody is talking about is that the government is assuming that all the younger people will be agreeable to paying higher premiums that is necessary in order to subsidize the premiums for seniors. Why would they do that? Most younger people are not going to need medical care, as they are healthy, therefore; they will pay the penalty to opt out of the system.
If enough young people opt out, enough States opt out of medicaid, and enough businesses opt out and pay the fines, then there is coverage for all the illegals, all of which means we will have masses of uninsured, just as we do now, but now, the I.R.S. will be able to levy huge taxes on every taxpayer to cover the gap in funding, and the services provided will be far inferior to what is available now.
Real Estate Agent · Hackettstown, NJ · Member since 2011 · 206 posts · 62 votes
14y
While I agree with this as a whole (the richest-best country in the world, should not have 50 million without insurance), I have to wonder if it will not be mis-managed, just like most things the Gov't touches. But maybe since a seed was planted by RomneyCare a few years ago, we can all start to work together with ObamaCare, no matter who gets in, and learn from Romney's "case study"!
Investor · Central Valley, CA · Member since 2012 · 6k+ posts · 3k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by Will Barnard:
I have an investor friend who's wife has a pre-existing condition. They have plenty of funds (believe me) and could afford a much pricier plan, but she couldn't find any insurer that would take her. She got a job doing admin work for a hospital just because their insurer would cover her and there was no medical examine required. She works the minimum amount of hours to keep the coverage. She doesn't need to work and would rather spend that time working in their RE business. I can't imagine anyone thinks that's a great way to manage pre-existing conditions for the self employed.
"As to income, my accountant can only do so much to save me taxes, my AGI will be higher than the $250k limit so I will have exposure to this 3.8% tax. "
Will, I'm not sure how exposed you will be. The tax is not on all income over $250K. It's only on non wage income, or rather passive income from capital gains. My re-sale profits are mostly ordinary income and not capital gains. Surely not all your flips are capital gains? If your corp were to pay out high wages, those are not taxable at the 3.8%, at least that's my understanding.** The 3.8% tax appears to be focused not on high wage earners, but on high non wage profits. That's doesn't seem to egregious to me. It's the Dems saying that people whose AGI is over $250K AND making passive income can afford an additional tax. Let's face it, we can.
**Do any tax professionals here have a different understanding? Isn't the 3.8% tax only on non wage income for couples with an AGI over $250K?
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by Karen M.:
What nobody is talking about is that the government is assuming that all the younger people will be agreeable to paying higher premiums that is necessary in order to subsidize the premiums for seniors. Why would they do that? Most younger people are not going to need medical care, as they are healthy, therefore; they will pay the penalty to opt out of the system.
This is no different than social security and medicare now. If you're under 65, you get *NOTHING* out of what you pay into the system until you're at least 65 years old.
And again, I'm not a fan of this particular bill, and I agree that the government is often pretty horrible about administering their programs (if they weren't, we'd be saving trillions a year on military and social program expenditures!)...but those aren't reasons for giving up on ensuring that every person has access to health care.
Rental Property Investor · Englewood FL & Prior Lake, MN · Member since 2012 · 107 posts · 33 votes
14y
I understand this isn't the place for a political debate, but since the topic was raised and it's a vitally important topic to all of us as is evidenced by the activity on this thread, I'll add my 2 cents.
The federal government was formed to protect our rights. It should have no role in delivering basic services like health care. Robert's ruling is irredeemable. He states that the mandate cannot be squared with the commerce clause, but then rules it constitutional because they can tax pretty much anything. I take it as a back-handed slap. The commerce clause if meaningless if the Feds are free to do anything as long as they enforce it with a 'tax'. Healthcare is not a right, it is a service. You can't have rights to services or products that others provide.
If a state wanted to pass something like this or Romneycare, that's their business, but the Federal government should have no role in this. The problem with escalating healthcare costs in this country is due to the fact that very few pay for their own care or even their own insurance. Nothing in this law addresses this, but in fact it only makes it worse.
I want to buy my own insurance to protect my family. This isn't practical because the tax benefits are only available if my employer pays for the insurance. The huge downside is that if I change jobs my insurance changes and if we ever do get sick we then have a pre-existing conditions that we won't be able to insure down the road. Employer paid insurance also greatly limits my concern for the cost of any care we require.
We need free market reforms like those that Romney and many Republicans have proposed. We should be able to shop for insurance across state lines (that would be the definition of interstate commerce that is supposed to be protected). Insurance and medical expenses should be deductable by individuals or should not be deductable at all. Certainly businesses should not be put in an advantaged position over individuals. We should encourage major medical insurance not pre-paid medical care where you're covered from the 1st dollar of cost. I could go on and on. Of course Obamacare takes the opposite approach relying on big brother to provide for all. It is shameful.
Rental Property Investor · Englewood FL & Prior Lake, MN · Member since 2012 · 107 posts · 33 votes
14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Brandy Y.:
Seems to me, 85% of Americans who currently have access to insurance coverage will pay for the other 15% to have access.
Yup...and personally, I can't think of a better way to spend my taxes than to ensure that others are suffering less.
Then go ahead and contribute to a charity to provide care for the uninsured, but don't steal from the rest of us. Government is not a charity and should not be. It's purpose is to protect our rights and freedoms.
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
14y
Originally posted by Alan Mackenthun:
Originally posted by J Scott:
Yup...and personally, I can't think of a better way to spend my taxes than to ensure that others are suffering less.
Then go ahead and contribute to a charity to provide care for the uninsured, but don't steal from the rest of us. Government is not a charity and should not be. It's purpose is to protect our rights and freedoms.
Government is just to protect our rights and freedoms? I guess you've never called 911? You've never benefitted from police services, fire services, EMT services, etc? What about the FBI, CIA or NSA? Those government services are NOT designed to protect our rights and freedoms -- they are designed to protect our health and safety. Have you used them?
Or do you not believe that the government should be protecting our health and safety as well as our rights and freedoms?